In search of good governance

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): I find reflecting on old and new wisdom a very enlightening exercise. It can provide a different view of our national problems -- a view that makes the situation look more soluble. The following is an example.

A friend of mine who is a professor of constitutional law went to see a traditional healer to seek treatment for a member of his family. He witnessed the entire healing process and could not believe what he saw. The patient's right arm, which had been stiff for several years, could move again, albeit very slowly. He believed the patient had been basically cured.

As we all know, a traditional healer is usually a "wise man", a person with a contemplative attitude toward life. Knowing this, my friend engaged the healer in a conversation about our country's current social problems.

The wise man talked about two human virtues: pinter (meaning smart, intelligent or knowledgeable) and suci (meaning clean or spotless, as a result of scrupulous living).

We can come out of our present turmoil, he said, only if the nation is led by people who are both knowledgeable and spotless.

"A spotless person who is not knowledgeable is handicapped by his ignorance. But he or she does not bring harm to anyone else. On the other hand, a person who is smart but unscrupulous, will cause suffering to many people."

I was dumbfounded. The wisdom in this simple observation rung true in my heart. I immediately thought about the many smart people who habitually violate rules without exhibiting the slightest trace of remorse. I thought about the social damage caused by these smart but unscrupulous people.

I thought of the victims, the millions of simple people who always try to observe and obey the rules, but who are quite ignorant about the manipulations and deceptions perpetrated by smart but dishonest people around them.

These decent people suffer because they lack the knowledge with which to distinguish dishonest intentions from honest promises. Their naive decency is simply no match for the intricately deceptive schemes set up to take advantage of them.

Following the logic behind this healer's old Javanese wisdom, I began asking myself where were the Indonesian leaders who are both intelligent and spotless, especially among the young generation. Surely there must be young people among us who are honest, knowledgeable and capable of perceiving and solving our country's current and future problems.

In my view, people with such character traits are the ones who could pull this country out of chaos and lead us toward a more civilized and mature existence.

But where are such leaders?

At this point, I began to doubt whether this is the right way to think about the future of our country. I began to think of other wise sayings reminding us of the danger of relying too much on individual leaders.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance, said in his Notes on the State of Virginia that "Every government degenerates when entrusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositors." Abraham Lincoln said in a speech in 1854 that "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."

And Thomas Paine, in contrasting the concept of "society" and "government", said that "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

Against the backdrop of such observations, the idea of "civil society" as a force to control government from committing arbitrary actions begins to make sense. This is new wisdom.

According to Philippe Schmitter, civil society provides a "reservoir of resistance to arbitrary and tyrannical action".

Looking at the other side of the coin, Edward Shills said that civil society is the place "where citizens learn the civic manners that make opposition less rancorous".

And in general, scholars associate strong civil society with a just and effective government.

According to Nancy Bermeo, the 1960s and 1970s showed that an "overly active civil society can harm our chances for good government".

It was on the basis of this experience that Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba advocated "civic culture" as the culture best suited to democracy whose main characteristic is "a blend of activity and passivity".

And according to Samuel Huntington, disorder is inevitable when participation is expanded to include those who "failed to cultivate the art of associating together".

This warning makes me very worried. I immediately thought of the myriad of political parties that have been burgeoning in our society.

A friend told me that as of Sept. 12, the country had 84 political parties and that four more were in the pipeline. What if most of these parties were led by unscrupulous political adventurers? And what if they fail to cultivate the art of associating with each other?

Thus while it is clear that what we badly need is a group of honest and intelligent leaders backed up by a strong civil society, it is also equally clear that we have to work very hard to make these dreams come true.

Meanwhile, the condition of our country is getting worse by the day. According to United Nations Development Program, the symptoms of government failure are "poor services, poor policy capabilities, weak financial management, corruption, excessive or arbitrary regulation and inappropriate allocation of resources".

Sound familiar?

Will our political parties be able to learn in time how to communicate and associate with each other? And will we be able to have a strong civil society in time to replace an inept government with one capable of implementing the principles of good governance?